Amy Welborn recently penned a spot-on analysis of the recent missive from Cardinal Blase Cupich informing the members of his diocese that kneeling to receive communion is no longer permitted. Cardinal Cupich does not explicitly mention “kneeling”, but almost all agree that this is the clear target of his letter. As one has come to expect from Amy Welborn, the writing is both elegant and piercing, with a jeweler’s eye for nonsense.
Therefore, there is no need for me to rehearse again the issues she so ably dissects. But I would like to add some further theological and ecclesiological points in the light of her analysis.
First, this letter from the Cardinal shows us is that for all the talk about a more “inclusive” and “listening” and “synodal” Church, and for all the agitprop pontifications from folks like Cupich about how in a synodal Church the “people of God” are “finally” getting their say, all the rhetoric surrounding the Synod about listening to all voices is an empty sham. Welborn is more circumspect in her criticisms than I am (although, make no mistake, she is critical), but the blunt word “sham” is the only word I can find that accurately conveys the reality she describes.
And it is indeed a sham and the recent letter from Cardinal Cupich makes this clear, since all the chatter about a more inclusive synodal Church, when it comes to the liturgy, seems to be code for allowing liturgical innovators in a leftish register to do their thing, while severely circumscribing and hemming-in those whose “lived experience” is grounded in more traditional liturgical expressions.
Selective listening at the service of the Seventies
Where were the “listening sessions” before Cardinal Cupich issued the letter? Where was the attempt to accompany these “peripheries”? Therefore, for those of us old enough to remember the Seventies and the endless talk of the “spirit of Vatican II”—which was used to justify all manner of liturgical shenanigans, and which was largely a clericalistic imposition of the idiosyncratic tastes of an elite few all done in the name of “the people of God”—this latest version of post-synodal rhetoric from the Cardinal appears to be an act of rank plagiarism from that era.
All is putatively done in the name of the “people”, and yet what Cupich’s letter has done is little more than impose his own idiosyncratic tastes on the entirety of his flock with no discernible regard for the pastoral needs of a large segment of it. As in the Seventies, so too here again. What is happening is an open denigration for traditional forms of liturgical piety–no matter how popular and allowed by the GIRM–and their clericalistic suppression, in order to make way for a lock-step uniformity with one particular liturgical aesthetic. “All are Welcome” so long as they fit the mold and conform themselves to the crowd (or what the Cardinal thinks the crowd should be), otherwise they are encouraged to take a hike. In this context, the appeal to “lived experience” seems to have no room for a true grassroots pluralism of differing expressions of liturgical sensibility. There is only one “proper” way of receiving Communion: standing and in a straight line of conveyer belt efficiency.
Kneeling for Communion has been a practice in the Church for millennia. And it continues today as in my Anglican Ordinariate Church, where we all kneel at the rail and receive on the tongue with intinction. That this is allowed by the Church, there can be no doubt because it is explicitly allowed. So this letter from Cardinal Cupich has to be read as a not-so-subtle devaluation of the Church’s traditional liturgical piety in favor of a valorization and freeze-framing of Baby Boomer “Muskrat Love” spiritualities of saccharine superficialities. This is a nostalgic romanticizing of the era of lava lamps and eight-track tape players translated into liturgical form. It is the liturgical embodiment of corded avocado-colored phones that smell of cigarettes.
Why the superficialities of this Seventies style should be so elevated to a pride of place, Cardinal Cupich does not say. Nevertheless, what is abundantly clear is that if the good Cardinal is truly serious about extending a non-clericalist understanding of the importance of the lived experience of the laity then (as Welborn points out) the lived experience of more tradition-minded Catholics who find it deeply meaningful to receive Communion while kneeling should be a part of the “Todos! Todos!” Pope Francis has called for. But Pope Francis himself seems to embody a similar hypocrisy since the “Todos” of which he speaks apparently does not include those who prefer more traditional liturgy.
So, once again, this entire synodal regime of “listening to the people of God” is a complete sham and ruse, designed to deflect attention from the deeper agenda in play.
Furthermore, the meaninglessness of the Cardinal’s appeal to a uniformity of liturgical practice becomes all the more apparent when one realizes that although the “Todos” does not include the more traditional Catholic, it does include the Cirque du Soleil “liturgies” of Fr. Pfleger, LGBTQ rainbow flag liturgies, and a host of other therapeutic permutations of the Mass, all of which are not addressed (in his letter or elsewhere) by the Cardinal. “Synodal inclusion” means, in reality, a “no enemies to the Left of me” posture wherein the only lay people and clerics worth “dialoguing” with are those folks who are in full agreement with the prevailing secular Zeitgeist.
In other words, Cardinal Cupich has now made it clear that more traditional Catholics cannot sit at the “cool kids” table in the synodal lunchroom over which he is the lunch teacher overseer. He is that cool teacher who likes to hang with the cool kids, all the while silently approving of the table chatter amongst the adolescent cognoscenti as they cast aspersions at the nerds sitting alone over in the peripheries drinking chocolate milk and playing Dungeons and Dragons.
And this “cool kids” analogy is more than sarcastic, as it leads to the deeper ecclesiological point. Since it is all-together obvious at this point that “synodality” does not mean really listening to all voices, and since it is obvious that the so-called “listening” is in reality a curated audio file of prerecorded buzzword bilge, then we need to try to pin down what theological principles are really in play in the synodal lunchroom in order to better understand what is animating its chief ecclesial advocates.
Understanding the Conciliar context
Let us go back once again to Vatican II since the primary promoters of the synodal way all view it as a movement within the post-conciliar reforms. And most certainly the liturgical sensibilities of prelates like Cardinal Cupich are viewed by its supporters as somehow, however vaguely, embodying the theology of Vatican II.
Msgr. Thomas Guarino, in his excellent book The Disputed Teachings of Vatican II, points out that the Council fathers deliberately chose a more “analogical” theological path in its encounter with the modern world, rather than the more confrontational “dialectical” path that had been the norm up to that point. What Guarino means by this, in a nutshell, is that the “syllabus of errors” approach to the modern world had a tendency to simply reject all of modernity tout court as riddled with error and in need of some good old-fashioned Thomistic corrections. Its posture, therefore, was one of rejection followed by correction, hardly the stuff of a broad conversation with the world. Effective perhaps as a magisterial tool for clarity, it did not for all that clarity move the needle in favor of the Church as a real player in the reconstruction of postwar Europe.
By contrast, the Council fathers sought to find analogical points of contact with the modern world in order to identify those elements of modern culture that still contained the kernel of Christian truths, even if mixed now with error, in order to better evangelize that culture. Instead of saying, “No” to everything, what was sought instead was a qualified “Yes” followed by a Christian deepening of the truth in question. Think, for example, of Henri de Lubac’s book The Drama of Atheist Humanism as paradigmatic of this genre of theology. The concerns and questions of modern atheistic humanisms are duly noted, and their depths are plumbed with a profundity that steel-manned the atheistic arguments for them, only then to proceed to a Christological anthropology that creates a far deeper humanism.
In short, what the Council fathers sought was to “out humanist the humanists” by raiding the treasury of the tradition in order to show the modern world that the Church feared no truth wherever it is found and could actually double down on those truths in far more profound ways.
But it is important to notice that there remains in this analogical approach of folks like de Lubac a conservative “dialectical moment” where the encounter with the world must not only embrace what is true in the world but also to show how a deeper understanding of those truths requires certain secular distortions to be rejected and corrected.
However, there emerged at the Council as well a minority theological movement that came to dominate the entire post-conciliar landscape. It too sought points of analogical contact with the world, but instead of going on to view the encounter as an opportunity to bring Christian truths to bear in a new and creative way, viewed the encounter instead as an opportunity for the Church to enter into a dialogical posture with the world wherein the presumption is in favor of an open dialogue that can no longer assume the truth of the traditional Christian doctrines, all of which were now viewed as open to relitigation in the light of the “new truths” produced by modernity.
It is important to note here that this new “dialogical” approach argued for more than a simple open mindedness and a readiness to view old truths within a new depth in the light of new insights. This new approach was far more deconstructive of Church teaching and sought to reform the Church by changing her radically. And this change was always viewed in one direction: toward an ever-greater embracing of the cultural values of Western, liberal secularism and a downplaying of traditional norms and practices. Theologically, this was all justified by a distorted and runaway Rahnerianism that viewed the Holy Spirit as equally operative in the world as in the Church. In this view, the Church exists to give thematization to that which is merely latent and unthematized. But this eventually evolves into theologies of secularization that reverse that order and view secularization as the primary and most salutary effect of Christianity in the world.
Thus did “Church reform” come to be reductively viewed as little more than a series of compromises with the modern world. If a theologian wanted contraception, women priests, and a pluralism of religions model of truth, they were viewed as “reformers” and “in line with the spirit of Vatican II. If a theologian was against those things—even theologians like de Lubac and Balthasar, and philosophers like Maritain—then they were viewed as “against reform and against Vatican II”.
And most certainly, the liturgical debates and wars that raged after the Council fell into these neat categories as well. If you were in favor of maladroit octogenarians in diaphanous dresses dancing in the sanctuary with streamers, then you were in favor of liturgical “reform”. If you did not like such things, you were dismissed as an antiquarian crank. And on and on with every other liturgical innovation that came down the pike. The innovators were the “cool kids” who were the “reformers” and were granted wide latitude for their experimentation.
Cardinal Cupich’s latest letter, and indeed so much of what is now passing as post-synodal discussion, is in this school of thought. Theologically, it is to be situated, not with the ressourcement analogical thinkers including de Lubac, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger, but with the radical dialogical deconstructionists on some basic level. Viewed in this light, it becomes evident that “synodalism” for prelates like Cupich and his ally Cardinal Robert McElroy is simply a synonym for cool kid mimesis of the dominant culture. And by extension, as a subset of that, his mean-spirited and clericalistic attack on those who choose to kneel at communion is an expression of a preference for conformity to the horizontalist and anti-supernatural banalities of that culture.
At this point I know a lot of Catholics who are utterly demoralized by such moves and whose prayer has been reduced to a simple intercessory lament: “Please Lord, please make it stop.” I concur. But, for now, we need to better understand the background and the agendas in play.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I have two thoughts:
1. If I lived in Cardinal Cupich’ diocese, I would gather as many Catholics as I could to line up for Communion and have each of them kneel in succession as they receive the Eucharist.
2. Would it be flippant of me to mail a red ball cap to Cardinal Cupich that says, “Make Kneeling Great Again” with a return address from the Vatican?
Thank you Larry Chapp for this brilliant piece. Here I was lying in bed, minding my own business, reading, “The Devil and Bella Dodd.” When does demented become demonic? Thinking also of CS Lewis Screwtape letters. “At the very least, they can be persuaded that the bodily position makes no difference to their prayers; for they constantly forget, what you must always remember, that they are animals and that whatever their bodies do affects their souls.” I guess the Magisterium only read the Cliff Notes.
Hi Anthony! Good to hear from you. Been a while. I love the quote from Lewis since it applies here perfectly. And I love how legalistic and suddenly concerned for “proper rubrics” and “Liturgical decorum” the liberal defenders of Cupich suddenly become when it comes to something related to the traditional wing of the Church. They utter not a peep when the Mass is turned into a Rainbow Pride activist meeting complete with improper liturgical colors for vestments and altar cloths, but suddenly become pharisaical sticklers for detail when it comes to kneeling. And yet, the GIRM allows for kneeling, which only goes to show that their deeper concern has nothing whatsoever to do with the rubrics. Lewis nails it with this quote. This is all an effort to convince us that our posture at Mass should not follow the lines of anything smacking of tradition.
About body language and the Mass, following a Christmas Midnight Mass Bella Dodd reflects:
“It came to me as I stood there that here about me were the masses I had sought through the years, the people I loved and wanted to serve. Here was what I had sought so vainly in the Communist Party, the true brotherhood of all men. Here were men and women of all races and ages and social conditions cemented by their love for God. Here was a brotherhood of man with meaning” (“School of Darkness: The Record of a Life and of a Conflict between two Faiths,” 1954, p. 236).
It’s one thing for the Holy Spirit to “proceed” from the Father and the Son, but quite another for communicants to “process” lockstep into the hands of not-so-Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion or whatever.
Well stated! There are several things certain elements of Church hierarchy have “run,not walked” away with. The primary elements are piety and understanding of the sanctity of The Eucharist. Kneeling isn’t an accident, it’s the ultimate showing of reverence, just like kissing the Fisherman’s Ring, a symbolic gesture many bishops no longer allow. Do they not realize that they are representing Christ in that gesture?
One final note: there is a movement afoot to place ONE PENNY in the Christmas collection in protest of parishoner’s money that goes to Catholic Charities going, in an overwhelming amount, to feed and house the criminals who have come here illegally. This protest isn’t against all, but the fact that Catholic Charities makes no attempt to determine the criminals in the ranks of poor refugees. Shame on them!
GO FOR IT..RED CAP AND ALL..
What a poor excuse for a supposed Catholic understanding of Sacred Liturgy. Reminds me of my father, who was in charge of the Latin Sacred Liturgy here in the Wichita diocese for seven years. He too had little to no understanding of the history of Sacred Liturgy, As a result, we would always be singing the long flowery chant. Thank God our Bishop Khemme put a stop to that
I once told a friend, who just happens to be a priest, that I had no fear of leaving the Church, but I feared the Church would leave me. It seems every time Cupich, his boss, and those favored by the latter, issue statements, either verbally or in writing, that fear becomes more pronounced. I keep reading that one doesn’t abandon one’s mother when she’s being attacked, but what does one do when it’s one’s mother who’s doing the attacking? Is the Church becoming an ecclesiastical Medea?
Sin is not the Church. No one should leave the Church of Christ because of sin.
Let’s stay and pray that the Cardinal helps those who desire to receive kneeling have a place in each Parish to do so.
The Church is the mother. The Churchmen are her sons. The Church isn’t being attacked by herself, she’s being attacked by our siblings, her children.
It is all about an unconscious hatred of a narcissist for anything above him (including God). Not kneeling, clown Mass etc. have purely human origin. It is human self-indulgence/self-worshiping. Kneeling, reverence and true beauty (Liturgical arts) have their origin in God and in human spirit rising to God. I am sure that those who prohibit kneeling in fact cannot stand others worshiping someone else (God) and not them. After all, clown Mass is “a gift” of people who prohibit kneeling. They permitted it therefore they gave something; it is THEIRS. So, for an egocentric to see someone kneeling before God and rejecting a clown Mass is an offence because people are supposed “to kneel” before him and engage in pathetic actions which HE permits. If you kneel you refuse HIM; if you refused him you are worthy of hatred. It is hugely unconscious.
As for selective listening, egocentrics/narcissists listen only to themselves = those who express the ideas which a narcissist already has/approves. I have been saying this for at least a year: “synod of synodality” is nothing else but “churchy” expression of a covert narcissism. To understand what is going on, one simply should keep in mind that 1) a narcissist, both overt and covert, is god for himself thus an idea of God and serving Him is alien to him 2) a covert narcissist always dresses his selfishness in “for the good of others” and other “selfless” clothes. It is easy to unmask if one asks “is it for Christ’s sake?” For instance, if one applies this question to a prohibition of kneeling before Christ the opponent will have nothing to say.
Note that those “good-willing-for the sake of others-nice-blah” are in fact engaging in a construction of a totalitarian Church. I say “totalitarian” because of such a state’s attempt to regulate the most private life of the citizens. Think of it, they attempt to dictate how to relate to Christ in the Eucharist. They prohibit showing respect for Him.
It is quite ableist of you not to consider people with health issues that prevent them from kneeling.
Perhaps you, yourself, suffer from narcissistic personality disorder.
Perhaps, especially since being an Eastern Orthodox I do not kneel.
How exactly does rejecting a prohibition on kneeling turn into a requirement for everyone to kneel?
TLM Masses freely give Holy Communion to those who cannot kneel for health reasons. It is those who refuse to place kneelers for those who wish to kneel, but who are not strong enough to do so without a kneeler, who are ableist, enforcing their preferences on those who need more assistance.
I have to conclude that what eccesiasts like Cupich, Bergoglio and their ilk proclaim is never about some sincere, well-developed theological principle or teaching but rather their attempt to work out some deep-seated, intrapsychic, and disturbing conflict in their own lives. Unfortunately, they are torturing Christ and His Church to work out their personal problems instead of heading to: The Sacrament of Penance, their Spiritual Director and their shrink – ALL THREE!
I believe that Jesus became man to reveal the truth to us, and save us from our slavery to sin, and that he resurrected himself, body and soul, from his death on the Sunday after he was crucified.
I perceive that the Eminence Cupich, and the Eminence McElroy, and their mentor the non-Eminence McCarrick, and their promoter the Pontiff Francis, and the rest of “their circle,” do not share in my faith, confessed above.
Hence, they cannot kneel before what they dismiss as a childish mythology, that this Jesus is to be worshipped. To them, that’s just passe, and distracts from their court pageantry.
They all share one mind: the mind of McCarrick.
I reject all of these men as what they are: usurpers who luve to decapitate the Body of Christ (as generally observed by Fr. Robert Imbelli).
May they repent, and may Jesus be worshipped, instead of them.
Some of us Baby Boomers are more than ready for the ’70s to be over and done with.
I was over & done with the 1970’s back in the 1970’s.
🙂
Dreadful then, dreadful today.
Yes, what a wasteland that decade was.
It wasn’t the Boomers who caused the chaos of the 70s. It was the preceding “Silents” (born circa 1925-1945). Most of us Boomers grew up in the 1950s and pre-V2 1960s. The preceding generation were the then-young priests, Religious, and lay teachers and professors who trashed our heritage, beginning in 1962, and ran with the spirit of V2 into the later 1960s and the 1970s.
Cardinal Cupich used his authority from Christ to demand that no one receive Christ on their knees. Why should anyone kneel to the authority of a Cardinal if they are not supposed to kneel to receive Christ? This is clericalism.
If his Eminence is not too busy Synodaling, he would do well to pray on his knees about this matter during a Eucharistic Holy Hour. It is never too late to beg God for renewal from the tsunami of secularism that has flooded the Church since the 60’s. At this rate of decline, however, it will not be long before the last of the faithful in Chicago receives Viaticum lying down.
Spot on! 💯 % correct. As a traditional Catholic in from rural Ohio, we attended Mass at Old St Patrick’s in the West Loop —ground zero for Cupich’s attempts to remove all traces of worshipful liturgy from the Church in general, and the Mass in particular. During the entire liturgy — and with bold instructions from the liturgical flyer for the Mass — the “faithful people of God” are to remain standing throughout the Eucharistic Prayer and Consecration. There was no “bending of the knee” during the Mass, nor upon entering or leaving the pew.
The sanctuary was filled with a choir DIRECTLY BEHIND the altar, and a piano and a small string quartet conspicuously located just to the right and slightly behind the altar. Aside from the Priest and servers, there were perhaps 20 or more people (choir and musicians) squeezed into the sanctuary.
Obviously there was much distraction during the Consecration, as the choir was made up of mostly middle school kids who were in constant motion with hands, legs, and heads.
Never once did I see ANY one genuflect when entering, leaving or moving around in the sanctuary.
It was a horrible display, had NONE of the reverence for the Holy Eucharist that a CATHOLIC expects at a CATHOLIC Mass.
May God forgive Cupich and all who follow his misguided and harmful behaviors and instructions.
Holy Mary, Mother of the Church: Pray for Us
You should ignore this guy’s attempt to control how you worship. What can he do, toss you out of the church. If some of you kneel, others will follow. Do what your heart tells you.
This was a neurotic load of imaginary silliness. I agree with the Cardinal. I wish they’d go further and forbid communion on the tongue altogether—too many insist on pecking and licking my fingers. But that won’t happen anytime soon. At least these lickers and kneelers are in the minority. Christ said “take and eat”.
Perhaps you’d be happiest, Thomas James, if everyone just left the Latin Church and started receiving Holy Communion with the Orthodox. After all, the Catholic Church has made it clear that their Sacraments are valid..
Orthodox Church prescribes prostrations before the Chalice with Holy Communion when it is brought out for the first time during the Liturgy. During the Great Lent a priest does many prostrations at various times and a congregation is expected to follow him. We also receive via ONE spoon, with a priest and a deacon consuming everything left after a congregation.
Terrific. Recommend similar prostrations when you return to the One True Church which is not the Schismatic Orthodox Church, that, among other things, permits the mortal sin of adultery in the form of divorce and remarriage in direct opposition to what Our Lord Jesus has taught us regarding the indissolubility of marriage.
If an Orthodox priest does all of the prostrations you mention, yet he gives out communion to various adulterers who have been “confirmed” in their adultery, his humble actions of prostration are turned into a hypocritical mockery and not something to be celebrated or promoted.
That isn’t a very synodal approach, Thomas. Perhaps you shouldn’t be a EMHC if it bothers you so.
EMHC? Not sure I understand your reply. In any case, look, this is such a silly issue–and the above article sillier still. It is a major pain when we have someone come up and then kneel down, stick their disgusting tongue out, and I have to carefully put it on their tongue and be careful in case they peck (which alot of them do), and then they get up and proceed forth. In that time, I could have given out communion to three people. There’s nothing “more reverent” about it. These people say they don’t feel worthy to receive on their hand, but they feel worthy to receive? Or they don’t feel worthy to receive on their hand, but their tongue is somehow a more worthy part of their body? And what’s with the kneeling when everyone else is standing? Everyone else makes a reverent gesture, they put out their palm like a little altar, and receive and move on, without “standing out” from the rest of the people. The Cardinal is absolutely right. And the people have spoken–for the vast majority receive standing up and in the hand. But the disgusting tongues and the bad breath is just too much. The words are so clear: take this all of you and eat of it. Take! With your hands. When are you guys going to learn that piety is not necessarily holiness. So sad to see Larry Chapp write these pieces that please the most arrogant and condescending Catholics. Such a waste of talent.
Yet again with the judgment, Thomas. Why aren’t you acting more synodally and listening to those who wish to kneel to receive? Seems to me like maybe you’re too rigid and set in your ways.
Dont know your age, but I am old enough to recall receiving on the tongue as a little girl and EVERYBODY did it. It didnt take that long, and no one appeared to be poisoned. My bigger question is, what is the big RUSH these days?? Often a priest does not even leave a period of prayerful silence following the end of communion. It is concern that God forbid Mass runs 10 minutes over?? If its that horrible a prospect to face 10 extra minutes at Mass, then please remain home and allow the rest of us a pleasant time of worship.
There have been more than a few stories in every parish about hosts being found in pews, inside missalettes and other such desecration. Not to mention people who attempt to pocket their host and leave, purpose unknown. Receiving on the tongue PREVENTS all of that sacrilege.
I am extremely doubtful you get your own face close enough to smell anyone’s breath. But I could easily imagine how many disgustingly filthy hands you place a host into.
I have been attending the post V2 Mass for many years. I am not one who kneels for receiving Communion (bad knees) nor do I attend the Latin Mass. But I see no harm in accommodating those who find this “old style” of worship to their liking. Who are they hurting??
Finally, I would suggest that if you harbor such a strong level of disgust for your fellow Catholics,for simply kneeling for communion as at one time MILLIONS of Catholics ALL did, you should resign your position as a Eucharist Minister. The parishioners may in fact not know how much you dislike them, but Jesus knows. As Catholics we should be happy anytime another Catholic comes to Jesus , whether they kneel or stand to do so.
I like them, it’s their moist tongues that I don’t really want to look at, much less touch. And like I said before, “take and eat “ are the words Christ spoke. Take him at his word. Furthermore, I’m not an extraordinary minister, but an ordinary minister of communion.
Goodness Mr. James. You know, I thought as Christians we were instructed to leave uncharitable thoughts behind and reconcile with our brethren before approaching the altar?
I’d be more concerned about that than with the posture and manner in which my brothers and sisters in Christ receive Holy Communion.
1. Honouring your parents is one of the ten commandments.
2. You are clearly from James Martin’s Americain Media.
Do us all a favour and head back from whence thou issued.
Thomas, you are an ORDINARY minister of Communion?? A priest or a deacon?? I am sorry, but that makes your attitude even worse. Its hard for me to imagine Jesus finding anyone who followed him “disgusting”. He had lepers and all manner of ritually unclean people touch him. I dont recall reading about Him recoiling in disgust. I would NEVER want my priest radiating dislike to me for any reason. Its possible you think you hide it well, but I find that dubious. People are more aware than you might imagine. If you are touching peoples tongues there is an even chance you were never taught the proper way to do this.( I dont recall any old-time priests complaining about this) And maybe those kneelers “peck” at communion because they sense the rush of people behind them and the impatience of the priest/deacon. Which might not be the case if they had the verbal support of their priests.
We have an ever shrinking number of people attending Mass. I would think an effort would be made to encourage as many Catholics as possible to attend Mass and receive communion, whether they are kneelers or not. I have also heard that a disproportionate number of priest candidates come out of the Latin Mass congregations where all of them kneel for Communion.As compared to regular N.O. parishes.
As for your quote of “take and eat”. A more literal interpretation would involve every parishioner sticking their hand into the ciborium and TAKING their own host.Something that strikes me as unsanitary and disrespectful. And, as I hope you know, we as Catholics leave literalism to the Protestants. Tradition has been thrown in the trash in some quarters of the church, but thankfully, not all of it.
I dont think the kneelers are the problem. Its the judgmental folk on the other side.
Don’t come to my (Novus Ordo) parish if your fellow Catholics appall you so much. The “lickers and kneelers,” i.e., the ones who receive Communion in the Church’s default manner rather than by indult, are in the majority.
Keep the name of your parish secret Nick, unless you want the priest cancel-cultured by Bergoglio’s anti-Catholic henchmen.
Charity in all things, eh?
On the other hand, or knee or whatever, maybe Cupich is being highly traditional and historical?
Recall that in the 19th Century (alongside Vatican I!), cattle were uniformly railroaded from Abilene to Chicago, and corralled for slaughter and mass packaging. Likewise, today, the uniformity of packaged Mass “processions”…
“…Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.”
Or, now back on the first hand, we might also recall that in equally dark times of the past, the Diabolical One was always detectable by its cattle hoof and reversed-knee structure—such that Christian kneeling could not be demon-strated!
Larry, I did not interpret the words of the Cardinal in the same way you have. In our church we process to the front and receive the Eucharist with no communion rail. Many times, people process and then kneel on the floor in front of the priest while others wait in line behind.i have often thought this draws unnecessary attention to this person while others wait behind. We have always bowed deeply and the received the Eucharist. Is it possible this is what the Cardinal is referring to rather than those churches that offer a communion rail or have communicants kneel around the altar?
That is indeed what he was referring to, and the GIRM specifically allows Catholics to do it. I’ve seen people do what you describe and I’ve always thought it was interesting how little attention it draws and how the flow of people walking doesn’t seem to change. Maybe that’s not the case where you are, but that’s what I’ve seen. Cardinal Cupich did not specifically tell people they couldn’t kneel, he strongly suggested that they don’t. Many people will interpret that as forbidding it, because people can tell what a cardinal expects them to do when he says it.
Cupich might be on an even par with God. I’m not. I will never stand there like some automaton of Cupich and receive the gift of the cross like I were receiving some kids carnival ride ticket. No. Like those few chosen from among the much larger number of Gideon’s Army, I drop to both knees and stick out my tongue to receive. Cupich is NOT my spiritual director. The man hardly mentioned God’s name in his “prayer” opening the DNC in Chicago. The man is vile and objectionable in the very manner in which he represents the church. He is his own iteration of what Our Lord condemned in the temple elders as a “brood of vipers”.
In the words of Muskrat Love, “…and he whirled and he twirled and he dangled…” the “agendas in play.”
Because of my age and exposure to only the Novus Ordo, I am a person who has never knelt for the reception of communion; I have seen the reverence of those who do, and I respect that whole body response to God. I would personally do more than bow if it were asked. I approach my communion with God with every fiber of me in anticipation and awe. I see this same love of Jesus in the more traditional(or pre Vatican II with still good knees) who kneel before our Savior. Just making that point here (which seems obvious)
So, Larry’s point of the Synod being a listening (and therefore an action producing) event that’s not listening to some of the most devout but rather listening to our Godless cultural influencers, is quite harrowing. Thanks Dr Chapp
“all the rhetoric surrounding the Synod about listening to all voices is an empty sham.”
“a valorization and freeze-framing of Baby Boomer “Muskrat Love” spiritualities of saccharine superficialities.”
“it is obvious that the so-called “listening” is in reality a curated audio file of prerecorded buzzword bilge,”
Wow! What great writing. I love a writer who does not beat around the bush, but calls things as they are.
Random, I know, but I’d never heard the song “Muskrat Love” before & was only acquainted with the title.
Earlier this year I watched two muskrats chasing each other & playing in the water like otters do. Out of curiosity I found the song on YouTube & it described what I’d watched pretty well. Muskrats actually are really cute.
So maybe the song wasn’t that superficial after all.
🙂
Thank you, Dr. Chapp, for so forcefully and graphically calling out the contemptible liturgical innovations of the contemptible Cardinal Cupich and his contemptible ilk.
You liken the dumbed-down Synodolatrous streamlining of the liturgy at the hands of Bergoglian hacks like Cupich to the dismalness of the archetypical Boomer plaint from the mid 1970’s, ‘Muskrat Love’. And your assessment is right on the money.
You describe the liturgical innovations of the Windy City’s windier Cardinal brutally but insightfully:
“This is a nostalgic romanticizing of the era of lava lamps and eight-track tape players translated into liturgical form.”
And I am onboard with everything you say, except for one thing.
Yes, The Captain and Tennille’s regrettable classic hit was every bit as shallow and trivial as you suggest. And, yes, it was indicative of the pop culture of the era, in which ‘Love Boat’ and ‘Charlie’s Angels’ and ‘Sanford and Son’ were the last word in pop-psych profundity.
But I disagree that Cupich’s depredations are, in the end, comparable to ‘Muskrat Love’ or the rest of the seventies bilge.
Cupich’s vapid Synodolatry is an affront to both God and man, while The Captain and Tennille at least brought us ‘Love Will Keep Us Together’ which was a tad and a half less obnoxious than ‘Muskrat Love’.
In short, I think comparing Synodolatry’s liturgical grotesqueries to ’Muskrat Love’ does a disservice to muskrat families everywhere.
I don’t know. The song is silly for sure but it did remind me of real muskrats’ behaviors:
“And they whirl and they twirl and they tango
Singin’ and jinglin’ a jango
Floatin’ like the heavens above
Looks like muskrat love”
Someone must have been watching a pair of muskrats like I did.
Chapp’s analysis is spot on. What I fear is Cupich’s letter is the opening act in implementing the ambiguous blather in the closing document of the Synod about a “synodal style of liturgy” (even more undefined than the undefined “synodality”). Of course, we’ll be told by the clerical opponents of big bad clericalism (like Cupich, McElroy, and Tobin) what that means. Once upon a time, Catholics would have been told to “pray, pay, and obey.” Now we dialogue instead of pray and most smart Catholics have cut off the financial teat to irresponsible bishops: you want to prove your opposition to clericalism to me, put ALL diocesan finances in the hands of a committee whose majority you neither appoint nor control. We’ll also be told this procession is the “experience” of the Church (although, clearly, subsequent “experience” that it is less reverent and other modes might better express reverence just simply cannot be considered). If I saw Blase Cupich really taking his pastoral responsibility to govern the liturgy in his diocese properly, I’d afford him credence. When that guidance is one-sided and one-directional, well, he undermines that credibility.
Thanks John! I appreciate the support.
As I commented on “X”, There is definitely an anti-supernatural spirit in the mindset of Cupich et al. It appears that they are afraid that the “people of God” might get too close to God. They seem to fear that bad things might happen if the faithful find intimacy with the Lord.
The drama is that they are not “afraid that the “people of God” might get too close to God”. The true drama is that THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND A TRUE ATTACHMENT/RELATIONSHIP is and they act accordingly. One can work with someone who is afraid of a relationship but one cannot work with someone who does not get what not just a relationship with God but a relationship with ANYONE is.
A relationship with the Person of God requires an attachment, just like a relationship with a human person. What is happening now is the simplest possible destruction of the supernatural, done not via prosecutions or theological heresy but via an abnormal human psyche which does not know what an attachment is. An attachment disorder “destroys” the divine. It is actually a theologically sound statement because Our Lord is both human and divine; if He had a pathological psyche incapable of an attachment/love there would be no Salvation. If he was unable to attach to others and to love them there would be nothing even if He still was the Son of God. Of course, it is a speculation because paradoxically, if He was not capable of an attachment and love He would not be the Son of God. If it is so, one cannot understand Christ if he does not get a true personal attachment.
Such a person, if he is a priest, will not get why it is unacceptable to obscure the Face of Christ from the Shroud installed in the side altar and been there for decades, for the purpose of making a historical exhibition there, done to commemorate the reopening of the Cathedral. Being confronted by the believer who says it is “disrespectful” to obscure the primary icon of the Lord with some item, he will say “yes-yes, it is very bad, I will move it” but does not. The whole absurdity and a sick symbolism of the grand opening of the Cathedral with the Face of Christ being disrespected and obscured (even after a correction) is lost on him. What do you do with such a person, especially if he says “yes-yes, it is very bad” and then does nothing? Note how his actions or non-actions deny both Christ as the Person and a believer as a person and a relationship of two. I believe this is a situation in the Church. I am that believer and I am ill since it happened because of an emotional shock.
Shouldn’t the hierarchy of the Church be more concerned as to getting the faithful to attend the holy Celebration of the Eucharist rather than being as concerned as they appear with the person expressions of faith as the faithful participates in the same?
As the hierarchy as worked to make the Sacraments and the Church more accessible, it appears that they have driven more and more persons away from both.
Undermining and/or removing that which served to unify the Body of Christ; I.e., the member of that body who make up the Church, has not seemingly worked well. Such a also clearly demonstrates that the hierarchy of the Church are not well serving the “teaching” institution of the same.
May the Father, through his Son, and in the Holy Spirit, rightly Guide us all in One Faith, One Lord and One Church.
Much of the push against the Latin Mass, and against kneeling, seems geared to try to lure more Protestants to the fold.So we seem more like them. It appears obvious that initiative has FAILED. But in so doing we have lost numbers of devout Catholics. On what planet is it that persisting in failed ideas is useful??
I would also observe this is all in alignment with the push to force “face to face ” confession on everyone. Our church still has an option of either face to face or behind the screen. But I was forced into face to face during the covid crisis when it was deemed “dangerous” for the priests to be too close to the penitent through the screen. I would have waited it out, but as covid shut downs wore on, it began to look as though we were NEVER going back to confession with the screen. I am also often bemused by the church bulletin urging people that if the confession schedule isnt helpful, one can make an “appointment” with the priest at the rectory for a (face to face) confession. Much like a meeting with your doctor or banker. Its my opinion this sort of thing strips the sacrament of its emotional content and makes it far too business-like. Not to mention making it even more uncomfortable (if such is possible) for the penitent who still prefers an element of anonymity at confession.
I will add that as I am a lector at my church, I am quite certain that ALL of the priests at my parish know my voice and know exactly who I am when I go to them for confession. This still does not persuade me that I have any interest in face to face confession. In fact I know many Catholics who prefer to go to confess in a different parish where they are not known.
I believe this pressure to “modernize” , whether the move to suppress Latin language Masses, no kneeling at communion or significant parts of the Mass, or confession face to face, has accomplished nothing except to push people away.
If the Cardinals who dont like these traditional Catholic norms are unhappy, they are certainly free to seek a church more to their liking, as opposed to forcing the rest of us into a mode of worship we cannot connect with.
As a Chicago Catholic who worships each week at beautiful St. Cantius and it’s TLM, I can attest that the packed house of worshippers receive holy Communion kneeling and can’t imagine it any other way.
And at one time, sadly, neither could anyone else.
It’s always been a sham–the kind of sham that lures nice people who really do want everyone to get along to thinking “well, maybe they mean it, let’s all go and share our experiences!” and participate in focus groups, listening sessions, and other gatherings. God bless them. And I usually participate in those things, if for no other reason than wanting to ensure they didn’t happen without the views of people like me being expressed. But when the people in charge do what they planned to do the whole time (“we said we’d LISTEN, and we did, now goodbye”) I am not surprised.
This is key. The listening is only to those they want to listen to in the first place. Cardinal Cupich does not care one iota what the more traditional “people of God” have to say and he does not listen to them. In fact, he goes out of his way to marginalize their voices, as with this letter. He cannot forbid kneeling, but he can make fun of it as showboating thus creating a negative vibe around it. I wonder if he would have the same reaction if someone came up and kneeled for communion while draped in a rainbow pride flag? My hunch is that he would find that altogether salutary.
This line is a gem of the article “Baby Boomer “Muskrat Love” spiritualities of saccharine superficialities. Thank you Dr. Chapp.
Synodal Ruse would be a great name for a horse.
Just as table manners and etiquette matter because they engender respect for one another and gratitude for what we been given in community, so with Holy Communion reception.
Different modes of reception signify that the Eucharist meaning different things to different people, a recipe for disunity and a temptation to judgement and even resentment.
And although we know that different levels of understanding of the Eucharist do exist, this is not what the lived reality should look like at this moment of maximal familial unity in Christ, an understanding of which would be enhanced by some basic table manners.
I would personally prefer Dr Chapp’s ordinariate’s etiquette but am all for the prescription of some/any reverent uniformity.
I feel a lot of Catholic love in the comments—–makes me think people are just looking for a reason to be angry.
Did you “feel the love” in Cupich’s comments?
Mr. Gerald, I’ve heard that issues inspiring outrage & anger get the most clicks & comments. But to be fair, this really shouldn’t even be a thing for a member of our Catholic hierarchy to complain about. Seriously. We need more reverence at Communion, not less. Some of our parishes put a kneeler in front of the altar at Communion so those who wish to receive Our Lord kneeling can do so. There’s no interruption of the Communion line or any distraction created.
It’s funny how we can selectively see “rigidity” on one side but not the other. There shouldn’t be opposing “sides” in the Body of Christ in the first place.
Well, I wasn’t looking for a reason to be angry, but Cardinal Cupich has certainly given me one.
I appreciate the perspectives of both Larry Chapp and Amy Welborn, because they have filled in gaps in my understanding of what happened in the years following Vatican II. I was alive but had no real comprehension of the reasons for the ongoing transition in the Church and have had to lesrn about the whys and wherefores from others.
Maybe I am alone in picking up an undertone of complaint in Cardinal Cupich’s letter, a sense that, in his view, the liturgical reforms on which he places so much value aren’t being properly appreciated these days. For instance, his observation thar “It would be a mistake to reduce the renewal to a mere updating of our liturgy to fit the times we live in, as if it were a kind of liturgical facelift” stood out.
If that is part of what is botherIng him, that is, that too many Catholics at Mass these days aren’t taking the post-Vatican II changes to the liturgy seriously enough and are overly attracted by earlier liturgical and devotional practices, then I stand guilty as charged. I grew up after Vatican II, I mainly attend the Novus Ordo and I can’t kneel for Communion without a kneeler because of a history of knee injuries, but when I read the letter, I don’t feel sympathy for his position. Because perhaps whatever the bishops thought they were doing in their “renewal” and “restoration of the liturgy” didn’t work in the long run. Whatever happened didn’t draw me in; I wandered away from the Church in my late teens and didn’t seriously return for several decades.
If his letter is, in fact, tacitly directed at Massgoers who kneel during Communion, then there’s a chance that moat of them won’t get his message. It’s hard not to notice that at the Masses I attend, most of the communicants who kneel look to be under 40, which means they have even less connection to the period following Vatican II than I do and are even less likely to identify with his position. So whatever Cardinal Cupich hoped to accomplish with this letter may not make much difference over time.
Mary E, when VII’s document on the Sacred Liturgy – Sacrosanctum Concilium – was promulgated in December, 1963, approximately 80% of American Catholics attended weekly Mass regularly. That figure now stands below 20% and, of those who are regular Mass attendees do not believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass or in the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated Host. There are, of course many factors at play in this steep decline, but I can’t believe that the liturgical reforms enacted on the authority of VII have not been a major influence in this sad outcome. Unfortunately, the reform has been dogmatized by churchmen such as Pope Francis, Cardinal Cupich and many others who seem to regard it as perfect and untouchable. Preference for any of the liturgical practices pre-VII is, of course a threat to such views, and must be dealt with harshly and absolutely.
Sorry, I meant to say that “of those who are regular Mass attendees, a majority do not believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass or in the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated host.” I’m unfortunately an amateur typist.
Thank you for your reply. These comboxes can be a challenge to type in. I try to look for typos but usually miss at least one.
Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I suspect Cardinal Cupich and like-minded clerics will have a harder time trying to undermine the attraction to some of the pre-Vatican II practices than they imagine. The real trouble will be with the Catholics born years after the liturgical reforms that Cupich so values, because that period of upheaval is totally out of their frame of reference. Going on and on about the importance of “processions,” the offense of “disrupting the procession,” etc., as though that should be the most meaningful aspect of the Mass, isn’t going to cut it.
Thanks, one can certainly hope.
Our enculturated Church is as nuts as the society it so effectively emulates.
In the pre-Vatican II Church before the altars were stripped, the statuary removed, the Communion rails thrown in the trash heap and churches denuded, there was never the brouhaha about kneeling to receive our Divine Savior’s Body and Blood. If someone was so incapacitated that they were unable to kneel, the priest would have simply given that standing person Communion without any fuss at all.
In addition, it was totally unheard of that someone needed special consideration because they were gluten intolerant. I don’t remember anyone writhing in the aisles because they consumed a small amount of gluten.
We have a culture of wimps and pansies. Good luck with that.
Peace is what I seek , I try my best to learn from the saints . Satin wants devision, please brothers and sisters understand it’s not easy to get along with eachother. We must respect the authority of the church that Jesus gave us. Even if we disagree with its leaders . Learn from st padre pio and st Joan of arc they suffered for the church and we are blessed because of their willingness to suffer. I agree totally with the author . More reverence is needed and it should be as beautiful as possible. But we the layaty are not in charge. We can’t separate from the body everytime something dosent go the way we want. It’s the reason we have so many denominations today and it’s heartwrenching. I’ve been suffering through this for a long time and I don’t like it as much as anyone else who has endured the same. I do not like for brothers and sisters to leave but i do understand why. However, This I do know ,no matter how much i suffer i will do it willingly because jesus gave us a promise. “The gates of hell will not prevail against his church ”
Shalom
Ybic bj
This silly proclamation from Cardinal Cupich traces directly to Francis’ opposition to the Latin Mass. In the Latin Mass the Priest, with consecrated hands, is the only one who can touch the body of Christ. Therefore all supplicants kneel to receive the Host on the tongue – they can NOT touch the Host.
This is based on the entirely reasonable belief that ONLY consecrated hands can touch the body of Christ, so this order from Cupich is another little chip away at the Latin Mass.
Little bit by little bit.
Terence McManus: I wholeheartedly agree with you. The problem with your argument however is that a majority of Catholics do NOT believe that the Host received is truly and really the Body and Blood of God – the Second Person of the Trinity who – became incarnate so that man could be saved and live eternally with God. And whose fault is that? Bishops like Cupich and Bergoglio.
Deacon;
Thanks for your comment. I disagree with you – I don’t think that Cupich and the Pope can be directly blamed for the fact that the majority (?) of Catholics do NOT believe that the Host is the body of Christ.
Who IS to blame? The times that we live in, which is not much of an answer. It is obvious that Bishops like Cupich and Bergoglio do not encourage adoration of the Host, in that they are supposed to provide a good example for us, and at that they fail.
Every error begins with an equivocation. Holiness is not Blasé, Blase.
One thing is never another.
That is why I believe in One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and not in any other; because it is the Mystical Body of Christ; not almost: Immaculate, exclusive and universal (simultaneously) Indefectible, infallible, perfect.
Kneel, Blasé, kneel.
I live in the NY area and given the large Catholic population, it has always been difficult for liberals to stray too much from orthodoxy, especially with liturgy, but I’ve still witnessed idiotic liberties. I’ve read apologetics from uncritical champions of VII who act as though clown Masses and other abuses were a thing of the past and wonder what can they be talking about. Did God somehow impose an end to the sin of pride in all His creation. Obviously not, this would be impossible. Liturgical abuse will always be with us, in subtler forms.
When it comes to “Muskrat Love” the term that I usually use is puppy love. People in the grip of an infatuation. It’s a start, but too often it has shallow roots and doesn’t last, then it’s off to the next infatuation.
Did any commenter actually read Cupich’s letter? It just says “Certainly reverence can and should be expressed by bowing before the reception of Holy Communion, but no one should engage in a gesture that calls attention to oneself or disrupts the flow of the procession.” It says nothing about kneeling per se. It calls out no specific act of piety for disparagement.
The reflexive outrage of the inter-Catholic culture wars is becoming ever more tiresome, offputting and irrelevant.
yan, I would remind you and the Cardinal that at one point after the consecration of the species but before the priest receives Communion himsrlf, he genuflects (which is bended knee – aka kneeling). Do you and the Cupich find that act as drawing undue attention to the celebrant? Let’s you and Cupich stop posturing and drawing attention to YOURSELVES.
Again: did you actually read the letter or are you just another poster who writes without first reading? Cupich calls out NO SPECIFIC ACT. He does NOT call out TAKING COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE. He merely states general principles that should apply.
I adjure you and all the willfully ignorant: READ.
Why don’t you stop trolling. I myself genuflect IN LINE. No, I don’t have a problem with it, obviously. Nor do I have a problem with anyone else doing it.
Well, calling attention to oneself while receiving communion can include many gestures -standing on one’s head, for example. But I don’t think that’s what the Cardinal was referring to, do you?
I don’t know how many times I seem to need to repeat myself in response to the same question asked by commenter after commenter who cannot seem to read or doesn’t care to read the actual letter but Cupich DID NOT REFER TO ANY SPECIFIC ACT; and so I do not feel the need to assume that he was REFERRING to any specific act.
If at some point in the future he DOES refer to some specific act then one may respond to said reference intelligently. But WHY should people feel the need to seek conflict with the bishop on grounds which the bishop himself did not specify and then claim that such conflict is justified by a duty to defend Christian piety and/or exercise Christian love?
The entire episode strikes me as an example of squabbling nonsense and a tempest in a teapot, nothing more. It is embarrassing and unworthy of an informed intelligent person like Dr. Chapp – and discrediting as well. I hope he apologizes and retracts this unnecessary piece of ostensive traditionalist apologia. We all make mistakes.
yan, don’t try to act naive here. You know the intent of this letter. Cupich acts like his boss i.e. wasting his time castigating those with whom he disagrees. And he employs the same deceptive tactics – staying just a centimeter shy of actually saying what he intends. Who in their right mind doesn’t think that Bergoglio supports the homosexual agenda and lifestyle? Yet, he stays just barely inside the threshold for heresy. We know what Cupich is saying without his having to spell everything out in great detail. It would be great if we could take these ecclesiasts at their word. Most of us know better based on past experience.
Then Yan, what precisely DID he mean? He hasn’t thus far made any attempt to correct widespread press commentary to the effect that he referred to kneeling when receiving Communion. His emphasis on standing to receive seems to compel that conclusion. Your opinion?
I read the letter several times. Yes, Cardinal Cupich was vague about the gesture (or gestures) and that is one of the main reasons I view his letter as largely ineffective. As stated, there’s no reason why anyone in his diocese who kneels before receiving the Eucharist needs to stop, because as numerous commenters have pointed out, the momentary act of kneeling doesn’t significantly disrupt anything. Although it certainly does seem to irritate some people.
What sorts of “gesture that calls attention to oneself or disrupts the flow of the procession” do you think he had in mind?
I don’t read minds. I read words. His letter should be judged on its actual substantive content.
He wrote about general principles and there was nothing whatsoever offensive to a properly informed liturgical sense that I could read in his brief letter in that regard. I emphasize the letter was BRIEF and did not merit this pendantic and flowery essay of Dr. Chapp in response to it.
Some people would prefer to see words which are not there, because they prefer to be contentious. Simple as that.
Are you capable of grasping that prelates are human and being human are as capable of sins of pride as anyone else including those they contrive, in their minds, to accuse of being motivated by sins of pride, especially when they’ve demonstrated a long history of disparaging Catholics who “cling,” to use his word, to the notion of immutable truth, as any person of authentic faith would?
In short, you don’t have any new substantive insight into Cardinal Cupich’s letter to offer. Only negative opinions about what you imagine other people’s motives and intentions to be, e.g., “they prefer to be contentious.” It’s a good thing you don’t read minds because you’re not demonstrating much aptitude for understanding other people’s intentions.
A responder asked what gestures. So it seems you haven’t seen any that cause undue attention or you’d have said so I assume. You do have to take into context all that has been said on this issue and make a most likely conclusion as to what was meant. That is part of reading and wis tested in this sat lsat etc type of questions. Here you just have to apply material not provided in the reading. Finally I doubt anyone has seen continuous jumping up and down when receiving communion that cupichbwoyld bevregerencing. You’re being disingenuous.
I have to say, having my comments removed by the moderator after I attempt to intelligently and effectively reply to trolling comments which are made in reply to my comments is incredibly frustrating and makes me suspect that the Catholic impulse to censor ideas and speech is a congenital defect of Catholicism. That the censors in this instance are journalists who are typically of all people most sensitive to the importance of the need for viewpoints to be able to be discussed and shared without interference speaks even louder to the likely truth of my suspicion.
Your comments were not removed by the moderator. They were waiting to be approved by a moderator. As I have to explain at times to commentators who apparently think the internet stops in rapt attention every time they type something,
However, your comment insulting Dr. Chapp was not put through.
It is true that Cardinal Cupich does not specify kneeling. It’s also more than a bit foolish to think he isn’t addressing that in his column. After all, even his good friends at National Catholic Reporter know that’s the case, which is why they titled their Dec. 18th piece “Cupich: Standing, not kneeling, for Communion a ‘powerful symbolic expression'”.
It is no secret that Cardinal Cupich dislikes (or despises) traditional “stuff” such as kneeling for Communion. use of Latin, etc. I’ve had many conversations with people with direct experience of this with Cupich. For more on his questionable manner of dealing with various matters, see my Feb. 2015 article “A Tale of Two Bishops”.
Yan spelled frontwards is a nay-sayer.
This is what I am reflecting.
Cupich is overplaying the narcissism thing from its secular usage. He is not the only cleric who does this, transferring condemnation associated with the word outside the Church onto the faithful. You do not draw attention to yourself through kneeling to receive communion.
Some particular vain individual could have such a mentality; the priest can correct it in private. Imagine we have to instruct the Cardinal on that.
Revisit the secularized narcissism thing. Are there not many KIND ablutions, anesthetics, curatives, dressings, plasters, salves, tonics, purgatives and cures, etc., available in grace, for the many different prides? It’s not like it’s fatal. Even when it’s fatal, it’s still not the end! We must not be adapting the attitudes and behaviours of the woe-be-gone generation who are fond of the devastation they inflict when they wield the narcissistic word and the opportunities they look for to do it.
But Cupich is maybe affected by something else, puerile embarrassment and fear about the faith from the gazes of unbelievers and scoffers and from among baptized who are scornful, squeamish, silly, touchy, self-affirming, badly affirmed.
Or googlers, the long-in-the-eye who go around ready for a next gabble. I have more than a few in mind. Is the priest ready to correct any of them? In fact one time I also experienced an overreaching complimenting -from a woman after Mass- when I had received communion in the hand, standing before Sanctuary where remaining Host in both species was left unattended upon the altar.
Who is drawing attention.
“At the name of Jesus, every knee should bow…” Phil 2:10-11
Christmas morn,the legends say,
Even the cattle kneel to pray,
Bending heads and knees to Him
Who came to earth in a stable dim.
And shall we, for whom He came,
Be by the cattle put to shame?
Denis A.McCarthy
Kneeling or Standing? The crucial question remains: Why would Catholics receive communion when they are not in a state of sanctifying grace?”
“Metanoia through communio with the Holy Trinity!”
Leo Tolstoy—
“Everyone thinks of changing the world but no one thinks of changing himself.”